I actually quoted 0 parts of the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment. I only pointed out that many words in it that have had controversial meanings. The only particular word I left out was “people”, and that is because you had brought up that there were those who thought that people=states. I even used the words “arms” and “infringed” in my post, so claiming that I left out the second half that contains those words is a fairly inaccurate reading.
You then, decided to quote the second amendment yourself, but you left out the first half.
They were unanimous in all of their decisions regarding the 2[sup]nd[/sup]?
Neither of those backs the states=people claim.
All that is pointing out is that the 2[sup]nd[/sup] doesn’t say “…the right of an individual person to keep and bear…”, but rather, the people of the country as a whole.
If it said “individual person”, then it would be much harder to deny rights to people to have a gun even if they are a criminal, even if they are actively engaged in criminal activity.
Nope, I specifically quoted the very part you omitted.
And here we go again. You know it makes no difference. A 5 to 4 majority is just as binding as a 9 to 0 one is.
I’ve never made that claim. What I did say was we, you and I, are the people.
You’ll have to take that up with SCOTUS, as they’ve already ruled the opposite, that it is in fact an individual right. Why do you keep twisting this? It’s established by the highest court in the land exactly what the word ‘people’ means in 2A.
Again this appears to be a purposeful misrepresentation of what’s written.
Let’s begin with a quote of the passage in question and then we can parse it. Madison says:
[INDENT]
"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, "
[/INDENT]
The “standing army” can only be sustained at 1% of the population. In 1790 the total population of the “United States” was 3.9 million (which includes 700K slaves) which gives us Madison’s estimate of 25,000 to 30,000 man army in 1787. He states that the number of citizens “capable of bearing arms” amounts to 25X the number in the standing army which is just another way of saying 25% of the total population.
That percentage / ratio precisely equals the entirety of the White male population over 16 years old. The census for 1790 lists the over 16y.o. White male population as being 807K in a total of 3.2 million free persons. That is exactly 25%.
Of that 750,000 or so, “capable of bearing arms”, Madison estimates that 500,000 actually has arms in their hands. While that might be 16% of the free population, it is 100% of the people who would later be held liable to perform militia duty under the Militia Act of 1792 which was White males 16 to 45 years old. With the expansion of rights and non-discrimination policies, extending the full exercise of rights to Blacks and women and also including them in the unorganized militia in US Code, the modern percentage of armed citizens to total population (25%) is not out of proportion.
The most important take-away from Federalist 46 is the principle that the “standing army” should always be at a numerical disadvantage to the armed citizenry. In 1787 Madison put that superiority at each soldier being “opposed” by roughly 20 armed citizens.
Interestingly the ratios hold true today . . . 321 million “total souls”, an active duty and reserve “standing army” of about 2.9 million being opposed by roughly 80 million armed citizens – which puts it at 27 armed citizens for each soldier.
Do you see any difference between saying “the right of an individual person” rather than the country as a whole? That strikes me as rather meaningless. The point is, the people who believed and continue to believe the 2nd described a collective right (the country as a whole) were directly contradicted by the Heller ruling.
Setting aside that the meaning of “the people” has been established and felon in possession laws across the country are not in jeopardy, this assertion is quite ridiculous. I’m not sure what standard you are using for “much harder”, but it would be virtually zero burden to enact a law prohibiting possession of a firearm even if the constitution said individual person rather than “the people”. Let’s take Washington State for example. It’s constitution says:(my bolding below)
For going on 140 years the Court has been boringly consistent holding that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. That means that all the “interpretations” of the 2nd Amendment that impart conditions and qualifications on the right are illegitimate. It also means that any argument that the right is contingent upon a citizen’s membership or action in the organized state militia is also illegitimate. When the Court says the right is not “in any manner dependent on the Constitution”, that means that the right can not be deemed dependent on something that is itself completely dependent on the Constitution for its existence (the organized state militia).
That truth forces certain unavoidable determinations that are not subject to “interpretation” about the right to arms and government’s power to restrict it.
It flows back to the genesis of the “state’s right” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment – that the 2nd Amendment only secured a right of the states to organize and deploy their militia without federal interference . . . That there was no claimable right for a citizen under the 2nd Amendment.
This perversion was inserted in the federal court system in 1942 in a lower federal court case called US v Tot.
In Tot the 3rd Circuit said that, the 2nd Amendment, “unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.”
Actually in 1942 there was a double-whammy . . . In the 1st Circuit the “militia right” was hatched in a decision called Cases v US.
Both denied any individual right aspect to the 2nd and 2nd Amendment case law remained off the rails for 66 years until Heller invalidated those two lower court decisions and reaffirmed SCOTUS opinion of the right to arms / 2nd Amendment.
Yes, becuase Felons have also lost the right to vote and the right to not be forced into labor. They have been deprived of those rights by “due process of law”.
Once again, not responsive to my post. What anti-gun folks thought that people meant states? I suppose that there may have been some obscure blogger somewhere that did so, but any actual politician or person with influence?[p/quote]
Legal scholars have put forward the notion that it referred to THE state. Conflating “the people” and “the state”
The part I left out was pretty much ignored by the Supreme Court as well. I used to think that the prefatory clause had at least SOME legal consequence. But SCOTUS said no and the gun control side pretty much lost the war and are now just letting the Democrats die in the battlefield.
It doesn’t say that the person threatened the other or tried to steal the phone, just that he pulled out a handgun. Not even that he brandished it.
As far as the info in the story could go, the person buying the iphone may have pulled out his gun because it was blocking access to his wallet, and the seller panicked and shot him.
I’m not saying that that is how it played out, but that is just as valid an interpretation as the seller protecting himself, given the info in the story.
But, in any case, assuming that this was an attempted robbery,this was actually in the home of the seller that this happened, not in public. The only person carrying a gun in public in this story, in fact, was the buyer, who was not using it for defense.